The Cessation of Special Revelation: Concluding Commendation, Caution, and Exhortation
Posted by deangonzales on April 6, 2009
I have tried to demonstrate that the Biblical evidence weighs in the favor of the cessationist position. I have argued that pre-parousia special revelation ceased with the completion of the New Testament. I also have argued that NT prophecy and tongues are modes of pre-parousia special revelation. If these two premises are true, then, I believe, we have compelling reason to conclude that the prophecy and tongues of the NT have ceased (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8). The various objections raised by continuationists have not proven conclusive enough to overturn that conclusion (see Part 9, Part 10). I would like to close this series by offering some commendation, caution, and exhortation, which will apply to those on both sides of this debate.
Commendation
One of the aims of this series is to highlight what I believe to be some weaknesses and dangers of the continuationist position. In doing so, I do not want to convey a lack of appreciation for some of the legitimate concerns and emphases of our continuationist brothers. For example, many continuationists, like Dr. Grudem, are concerned to uphold the supernaturalism of Scripture. They firmly believe in the reality of divine miracles and God’s extraordinary providences. They are wary of a rationalistic tendency among modern scholars to explain away the miraculous. I want to commend them for upholding the supernaturalism of Scripture, and we who are cessationists do well to share their concern.
Furthermore, my continuationist brothers seek to give a proper emphasis to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. They take seriously the many NT references to the Spirit’s work of empowering the people of God for ministry. We who are cessationists should also strive to give appropriate emphasis to the Holy Spirit in our church worship and life. We should beware of developing a self-sufficient attitude that relies merely upon intellect, eloquence, or human resourcefulness. On the contrary, we desperately need the Spirit’s ongoing ministry in our lives as individuals and our life as a church. Borrowing from Luther’s language regarding the important place of the doctrine of justification, George Smeaton (whom I believe was a cessationist) aptly remarked,
Wherever Christianity has become a living power, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has uniformly been regarded, equally with the atonement and justification by faith, as the article of a standing or falling Church. The distinctive feature of Christianity, as it addresses itself to man’s experience, is the world of the Spirit, which not only elevates it far above all philosophical speculation, but also above every other form of religion.[1]
I think cessationists should share Smeaton’s zeal for the doctrine and ministry of God’s Spirit. Indeed, in this respect, we all should be “continuationists” and affirm a “pneumatic” Christianity.[2]
There are other areas of concern and emphasis among some of our continuationist brothers that also deserve our commendation, in my opinion.[3] In these areas, I believe those of us who are cessationists can and should learn from our continuationist brothers. Notwithstanding their commendable concerns and emphases, however, we must also be aware of some of the weaknesses and dangers of their position.
Cautions
In particular, I believe there are at least three areas of weakness and potential danger connected with the continuationist position on the subject of NT prophecy and tongues.[4]
(1) The authority and sufficiency of Scripture may, in some cases, be subtly undermined.
Continuationists like Grudem insist that the gift of prophecy must remain subordinate to Scripture and the official teaching of the church.[5] I certainly admire Grudem’s zeal to protect the final authority of Scripture. When Grudem and others begin labeling certain NT prophecies as “fallible,” however, it seems to me they open the door to allow for the same assessment of other prophecies in the Bible.
For example, in Matthew 10:23, Jesus tells His disciples, “You will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” If we apply Grudem’s criteria for prophecy to Jesus’ prediction, we would have to conclude that it did not literally come true and therefore was at least partially fallible. Grudem himself would resist that conclusion, but many critical scholars do not share his reserve. They would agree with Grudem that the NT contains examples of fallible prophecy, and they would not hesitate to apply his hermeneutic to Jesus’ predictions and label some of His prophecy as fallible. In fact, some would take Grudem’s argument a step further and apply it to the entire Bible.
The point I am underscoring is that it’s not a huge step from a Grudem’s view of NT prophecy to a neo-orthodox view of Scripture, which ultimately denies Scripture’s unique authority.[6] Once again, I’m certain Grudem himself would resist taking that step. I fear that for weaker souls, however, Grudem’s category of potentially fallible NT prophecy could sow the seeds of doubt that later develop into a full-blown skepticism towards the inspiration of Scripture. Furthermore, in a day when many professing Christians are discontent living by the general principles of Scripture, the promise of direct revelation from God that addresses specific situations on the spot is very appealing. The sad result, as O. Palmer Robertson notes, is that the specific word-for-the-moment takes precedence over the general principles of God’s Word.[7] In this way, Grudem’s view of NT prophecy and tongues can undermine the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.[8]
(2) The worship and order of the church can, in some cases, be disrupted.
In his book entitled, The Charismatics and the Word of God, Victor Budgen gives an account of one charismatic leader who assured his audience that his prophecy was not fallible and that he wasn’t afraid of making mistakes. According to Budgen, the man then tells of an incident when he wrongly accused a brother of immorality and later found he was wrong. Rather than deploring his action, he laughingly said that he normally was not so insensitive.[9]
This raises some important questions: how should God’s people respond when a church leader or member stands up in the midst of the assembly, proclaims, “Thus says the Lord,” and then utters a prophecy? How much of that prophecy should they regard as true? Ninety-percent? Eighty-percent? Sixty-percent? Who decides? And what happens if it is determined that the prophecy contains error? Should the church leader or member be allowed to prophecy again? How many mistakes can he make before he is disqualified? How serious of an error does he need to make before he is treated as a false prophet and put out of the church?
Grudem tries to offer some guidelines for the practice of prophecy in the church. He argues that NT prophecies should be evaluated according to Scripture and they should remain subordinate to the teaching ministry of the elders.[10] But I did not find any detailed guidelines for dealing with leaders and members who utter false prophecies. I suspect, based on his own distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy, that Grudem would advocate a much more tolerant approach to false prophecy today than was tolerated in Moses’ day. However, the NT warnings to the church against false prophets and false prophecy seem to carry a far greater weight of consequence and urgency than Grudem’s view would allow (cf. Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 12, 24; Mark 13:22; Acts 13:6-11; 1 John 4:1-3; Rev. 19:20).
For this reason, I believe Grudem’s view increases the potential for disruption in the worship and order of the church. Granted, the potential for disorder existed in the first-century church, and Paul did not necessarily forbid prophecy (1 Cor. 14:39). However, we no longer have living apostles to regulate our worship and to help us assess prophecy. Furthermore, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, Paul and the other Apostles had a different view than Grudem of the nature of NT prophecy. And I believe their view of NT prophecy as full-blown authoritative special revelation calls for a far more serious approach to “regulating” NT prophecy than many continuationists seem to practice today.[11]
(3) The minds of believers can be confused regarding true spirituality.
Whether intentional or not the impression is sometimes given that possession of the extra-ordinary is indicative of greater spirituality. Consequently, believers are encouraged to seek the gifts of tongues or prophecy as a means to draw closer to God. Sometimes the reception of these gifts is portrayed as a “second work” of grace. But the Bible makes abundantly clear that the possession of spiritual gifts by itself is no sure sign of spirituality. Thus, in Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus declares:
On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (ESV).
Clearly, the great criteria for the Day of Judgment will not be the possession of spiritual gifts but the evidence of spiritual grace. As Walt Chantry appropriately observes, “Inward graces or fruits of the Spirit, not outward displays of gift, are the signs of spirituality.”[12] I believe this is the point Paul stresses in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, where he’s addressing the subject of revelatory gifts:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing (ESV).
According to Paul, the possession of revelatory gifts may or may not have anything to do with one’s spirituality. What really matters is whether one possesses and manifests true Christian love. Unfortunately, that’s not always the impression given in some Pentecostal and charismatic circles today.[13] The impression is sometimes given that spiritual gifts are the key to greater holiness and victory over sin. As a result, the minds of believers become confused about the true nature of spirituality.
Exhortation
These are some of the potential dangers that may result from a continuationist position.[14] Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that there have been and are today continuationist teachers who have not fallen into these errors, but they have maintained a reverence for Scripture, have sought to promote a God-centered worship, and have provided sound teaching for believers.[15] Furthermore, I do not believe we should view or portray all versions of continuationism equally. Some of the more radical forms are heretical. Many continuationists, however, are serious-minded, God-fearing, Christ-loving, and gospel-preaching evangelicals. Indeed, some of them even share with us an appreciation for the doctrines of grace. Therefore, let both sides remember Paul’s exhortation to be charitable and humble when discussing the question of revelatory gifts.[16] To use a phrase that I believe was coined by the continuationist Joshua Harris, senior pastor of Covenant Life and successor to C. J. Mahaney, let all sides strive for a “humble orthodoxy.”[17]
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (1882; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1974), 1.
[2] This call is issued by several authors who contribute essays in a book recently edited by Daniel Wallace and M. James Sawyer entitled Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), which includes forewords by Josh McDowell and Wayne :Grudem. To learn more about the book, click here.
[3] I also appreciate the emphasis upon the emotions that is present in some Pentecostal and charismatic circles. Personally, I find that the Reformed tradition sometimes overemphasizes the importance of the intellect (usually in the form of “the primacy of the intellect”) and underemphasizes the emotions or, worse yet, assigns the emotions to the “carnal” or “sensual” nature of man. The result is to cast undue suspicion upon what may be, biblically speaking, legitimate expressions of emotion in worship.
[4] I agree with Grudem that the mere potential for danger does not necessarily provide an argument for or against a doctrine or practice. As he points out, “Some things that are right are dangerous, at least in some sense” (Systematic Theology, 1046). Nevertheless, it must also be added that everything wrong is, in some sense, dangerous. And the Scripture writers do not hesitate to warn believers against the dangers and weaknesses of certain positions. Thus, having already provided the arguments against the continuationist position, I feel justified to warn God’s people of its potential dangers.
[5] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1039-40, 60-61.
[6] Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Bible itself is not divine revelation but bears witness to divine revelation through the fallible words of man. Thus, there is no substantial difference between Grudem’s view of NT prophecy and a neo-orthodox view of Scripture.
[7] Robertson, The Final Word, 128.
[8] It’s notable that some continuationist theologians, like Donald Gee, admit this danger. Writes Gee, “[There are] grave problems raised by the habit of giving and receiving personal ‘messages’ of guidance through the gifts of the Spirit…. Many of our errors where spiritual gifts are concerned arise when we want the extraordinary and exceptional to be made the frequent and habitual. Let all who develop excessive desire for ‘messages’ through the gifts take warning from the wreckage of past generations as well as of contemporaries …. The Holy Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.” Spiritual Gifts in the Work of Ministry Today (Gospel Publishing House, 1963), 51-52.
[9] The Charismatics and the Word of God, 2nd edition (Evangelical Press, 1989), 282.
[10] Systematic Theology, 1058, 60-61. See also the guidelines provided by Jeff Purswell of Sovereign Grace Ministries here.
[11] Budgen cites Herbert Carlson, a continuationist who does seem to advocate more serious consequences for false prophecy, such as suspension or excommunication (pp. 285-86). But I question whether such disciplinary actions are consistently carried out in Pentecostal and charismatic circles today.
[12] Chantry, Signs of the Apostles, 64.
[13] Thankfully, Grudem does not give this impression. He rightly asserts that spiritual gifts are “tools for ministry and not necessarily related to Christian maturity.” Systematic Theology, 1030f.
[14] For a more extended account of these errors and dangers, see Victor Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God, and John F. MacArthur Jr., Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
[15] I am thinking of men like Martin Lloyd-Jones, Donald A. Carson, and John Piper. I would also include Wayne Grudem, whose Systematic Theology I have found overall sound, edifying, and helpful.
[16] I am willing to admit that the evidence for the cessation of tongues and prophecy may not be as clear and conclusive as the evidence for justification by faith or salvation by grace or the bodily resurrection of Christ. In fact, I believe that the very fact well-meaning Christians disagree over doctrinal issues like this one may be partly due to the fact that our present knowledge in this age is in some sense partial and fragmentary—even with the Scriptures. This is not to deny the sufficiency and clarity of the Scriptures in matters pertaining to our salvation. It is simply to allow for the fact that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” (LBCF 1.7; cf. 2 Pet 3:16). This reality should make us long for the day when our partial knowledge shall be replaced by complete knowledge. Until that day, we must argue our convictions with charity and humility (Eph 4:15).
[17] This has been one of the dominant themes of the New Attitude Conferences founded by Harris. For more information, click here. This charitable and humble spirit is also exemplified in a message preached by continuationist Craig Cabaniss entitled, “Watch the Spirit Work: Serving Cessationists in Their Pursuit of the Spirit,” which can be downloaded here. One wonders whether cessationists might dare to return the gracious gesture and consider how we might serve continuationists (beyond mere debate). Any ideas?
15 Responses to “The Cessation of Special Revelation: Concluding Commendation, Caution, and Exhortation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Thank you Dean Bob!
April 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
[...] commendation, caution, and exhortation, which will apply to those on both sides of this debate. The Cessation of Special Revelation: Concluding Commendation, Caution, and Exhortation Enjoy! __________________ Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean Reformed Baptist Seminary Easley, South Carolina [...]
April 6th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
David, you’re welcome. I hope the series was edifying and helpful.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
April 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
[...] our final installment of this series, we’ll attempt to draw some practical conclusions from our study and offer [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Bob, I have enjoyed the dialogue on the ‘Cessation of Special Revelation’ and I think it would be a sad thing if it is not put into booklet form for posterity. It was a little difficult to follow seeing that it was given piecemeal but never-the-less greatly appreciated.
I am a member of Texarkana Reformed Baptist Church and hold the conservative view(the cannon is completed is not changed arbitrarily…by anyone). However, I do like Wayne Grudem’s works and understanding that we have some differences, still appreciate so much his great contributions to the Christian community.
If this is not printed for posterity, it will be a great loss.
Regards, Nickie
April 7th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The fact is that you haven’t shown one scripture to prove that the gifts have passed away. You cannot defend the authority of scripture by invoking and argument that scripture does not.
If prophesy and tongues were not undermining the authoriyt of scripture in the early church, when they had the OT and a major part of the worship service was reading and expounding scripture, then why do you assume it would do so now.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
John,
As I tried to indicate to you in a private email, I don’t believe there is “one Scripture” that proves or disproves cessationism or its counterpart, continuationism. I conceded this point at the outset of my series. I did, however, provide a number of posts arguing for the cessation of “Scripture-quality” revelation (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). Then I attempted to zero in on the real difference between cessationists and continuationists, namely, their respective views of the nature of NT prophecy and tongues (Part 5), and I provided the reader with the primary arguments employed by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a leading continuationist theologian, in favor of viewing NT prophecy and tongues as belonging to a different category than that of OT prophecy or apostolic witness (Part 6). In response, I tried to demonstrate from various passages of Scripture that NT prophecy and tongues should be included in the same category of revelation as inspired OT prophecy and apostolic witness (Part 7) as well as to respond to the examples of so-called fallible prophecy suggested by Grudem (Part 8). Finally, I raised and responded to several common objections to cessationism, including two main passages sometimes used by continuationists to defend their position (Part 9, Part 10). So in my estimation (which is fallible), I did attempt to provide an overall argument that’s based on the teaching of Scripture. You’re welcome to point out where I’m mishandling or misinterpreting texts of Scripture to support my argument.
I do believe there is something we can agree on, namely, the gift of the NT apostle (Eph. 4:11) has fulfilled its purpose and has, therefore, ceased. You seem to agree that there are no more living apostles, that we should not expect any, and that, therefore, we are to expect no more inscripturated revelation. So at some level, you are in fact a “cessationist.”
Why would prophecy be necessary in the first century NT church? For the same reason the entire NT was necessary: to help the disciples of Christ read the OT in light the Person and Work of Christ and of New Covenant realities. Since it took some time before the all-sufficient NT canon was completed and become available to the churches at large (i.e., some time into the 2nd century), I can see a need for ongoing oral NT prophecy. Once the NT canon, which provides us with God’s definite word from the last Great Prophet, Jesus (Deut. 18:15; John 1:17-18; Heb. 1:1-2a), was completed, I see no need for further special revelation, either oral or written.
In closing, John, I want to thank you for being open and transparent with me. I welcome criticism.
May the Lord bless your ministry.
Respectfully yours,
Bob Gonzales
April 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the response. You’re right that the crux of hte issue is whether “NT prophecy and tongues should be included in the same category of revelation as inspired OT prophecy and apostolic witness”. Since the early church did not consider those gifts as equivalent, as manifest by thier not writing oral prophesies down or treating those kinds of special revelation as equivalent to scripture, then the answer is obvious. And it is counter to what you’ve assumed throughout this series. They are not in the same category. While there are some charismatic extremist who would argue that they are (I once confronted a Pentecostal who had made that point in a sermon — a travesty — and when he saw that I wasn’t just a simpleton who wouldn’t fall for his nonsense, he just turned his back and refused to listen to me), all responsible continuists that I know of insist that they are not of the same category. But throughout this you continue to use the term “special revelation” (as it is used in formal theology of the canon) for the gifts of prophesy and tongues and you do so based on nothing other than your determination to prove your point. Perhaps you ought to consider that perhaps Grudem and almost every continuist has been trying to tell you: that these gifts serve another purpose other than “special revelation”.
I agree that the Bible is the last great revelation. That such special revelations ceased with the closing of the canon (when the last of the apostles, or thier delegates, stopped writing. But there’s no evidence that such were the kinds of things that prophesy and tongues were used for. If they were, why didn’t they write them down for posterity? That there is a vast difference between the special revelation of scripture and the impartial knowledge of prophesy and tongues and that that difference was immediately understood in the NT church is plain from the fact that they preserved the one but didn’t trascribe the other. That they could have done so is seen from the fact that some parts of scripture are transcriptions of originally orally delivered statements.
Further, my question is not why do we need an NT. (That was a sleight of hand, red herring, a way of misconstruing what I said in order to avoid answering my question but redefine it in terms you can easily answer.) But it was to get at your point that to believe in continuing prophesy and tongues is to potentially undermine the authority of scripture. Can some misuse “prophesy” to do so? Yes. But obviously the early church didn’t reason like that. Remember, the early church had scripture. One of the instructions of Paul to Timothy was to attend to the “public reading of scripture” by which he meant the OT, not oral prophesies that had been transcribed. The early church had scripture and oral prophesies and saw no problem with the existence of them side by side.
Then there’s the problem that you are seeking to defend scripture (which is admirable aim) with an argument scripture itself doesn’t invoke. A critic could easily retort that if scripture is so perfect why does it’s integrity rest on our creative theologizing? You cannot defend scripture with an argument scripture does not invoke.
Finally, this has all been an implicit denial of sola scriptura while ironically trying to defend sola scriptura. If scripture is sufficient, as both you and I would agree it is, then you should confine yourself to the doctrines it actually teaches. If you did that, you would never have written this series.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
John, see Part 7 of this series.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Oh, and in response to your final point: the only reason for this series is differing opinions on the subject. The fact is, scripture is not as clear on this issue as we might like it to be. I might add that you are defending your position much more dogmatically than Dr. Gonzales.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Have you read Don Codling’s book Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts? If you have, what did you think of it?
April 17th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Brother, I haven’t read Don’s book. Would you recommend it? Who’s the publisher?
Bob G.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Sentinel Press publishes Codling’s book. Codling was a graduate of WTS and is a Presbyterian minister. The book is basically his thesis for seminary, published in a book format. Please note, he argues against cessationism. Also note, that he does NOT endorse Grudem’s view on prophecy. The book can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Sola-Scriptura-Revelatory-Gifts-Codling/dp/0971569436
I also hear that Jon Ruthven’s book On the Cessation of the Charismata is a pretty good. It’s a rebuttal against Warfield’s older book, Counterfeit Miracles. I have not finished it. Even if you do not agree with Ruthven’s view on the gifts, Ruthven does seem to show the invalidity of Warfield’s arguments against the continuation of the gifts.
October 10th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I do not recommend Don’s book. The Westminster Confession of Faith, which he has vowed to affirm, states that the extraordinary works of God that occured in the apostolic age have now ceased. He tries to make a distinction between two different kinds of revelation, cannonical and non cannonical, but this is not a strong argument. If he believes in the continuation of the revelatory gifts, why has he not practiced them in his ministry? He does not practice it in his ministry (unless he has a private prayer language) because it is not accepted in the Presbyterian Church in America. This view of his is not his own, but has been held by others. It is ironic that Norman Shepherd, who is a federal visionist and has rejected justification by faith alone, was the advisor on Mr. Codling’s dissertation. This is the same Shepherd (not to be confused with a true Shepherd) that was dismissed from Westminster for teaching things contrary to the confessional standards. Sometimes these controversies create strange bed fellows.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Thanks for the very helpful article. It was a blessing as I am preparing for a sermon from Deut 18 and want to raise some application regarding cessationism.